2 ms·

>You'd expect a big city with a high density of customers would get lit up before a fairly small, sparse town if it was just a cost/benefit analysis doing the l

>You'd expect a big city with a high density of customers would get lit up before a fairly small, sparse town if it was just a cost/benefit analysis doing the location selection. The costs are so high that a reasonable person would never expect that, not without government subsidies. Like what's happening in the small towns. Nothing is stopping you from starting an ISP-- except the fact that you'll go broke because most people are happy with Comcast. Sorry if I didn't make that assertion clear enough in my original comment. That's why Google Fiber pitted cities against each other in mortal combat to see who could get the most people to sign loyalty pledges promising to subscribe and they turned on the electrified subsidy extraction machine to "high" before making a deployment decision. > The on-the-ground political resistance and obstructionism is still rooted in the same sort of backroom dealing and under-the-table kickbacks This is not true. Literally and actually you can start an ISP and run 100-gig fiber to every single block in San Francisco and no government or cabal in a smoke-filled room can stop you. Only your creditors can.

simoncion 2y ago
> That's why Google Fiber ... turned on the electrified subsidy extraction machine to "high" before making a deployment decision. If by "subsidy extraction" you mean "Required that the only objection incumbents could make to GF's pole attachments were objections rooted in real safety issues, that all objections must be resolved rapidly, and that incumbents could not charge GF outsized pole attachment fees (IIRC, often defined as 'not more than the incumbent had been historically charging themselves').", then, yeah, I agree they did demand a level playing field free from unreasonable interference from incumbent operators. > That's why Google Fiber pitted cities against each other ... to see who could get the most people to [promise] to subscribe... Yeah, that's part of any big, expensive rollout. You don't do it unless you have enough people who commit to use the service for a period of time to make it worth doing the rollout. > ...most people are happy with Comcast. The difference between the rates and restrictions imposed by the incumbent ISPs in areas where there is healthy ISP competition and areas where there is not suggest otherwise. Even credible rumors that an independent ISP might serve a significant portion of an area with a mon- or duopoly cause the incumbents to scramble to offer freebies, rate reductions, and gratis data transfer cap and speed increases. Given the all of the previous, and that the FCC continues to update their pole attachment regs to add more avenues for appeal and impose more and more "playing field leveling" rules, I suspect you know less about this topic that you claim to.

simoncion 2y ago

> That's why Google Fiber ... turned on the electrified subsidy extraction machine to "high" before making a deployment decision. If by "subsidy extraction" you mean "Required that the only objection incumbents could make to GF's pole attachments were objections rooted in real safety issues, that all objections must be resolved rapidly, and that incumbents could not charge GF outsized pole attachment fees (IIRC, often defined as 'not more than the incumbent had been historically charging themselves').", then, yeah, I agree they did demand a level playing field free from unreasonable interference from incumbent operators. > That's why Google Fiber pitted cities against each other ... to see who could get the most people to [promise] to subscribe... Yeah, that's part of any big, expensive rollout. You don't do it unless you have enough people who commit to use the service for a period of time to make it worth doing the rollout. > ...most people are happy with Comcast. The difference between the rates and restrictions imposed by the incumbent ISPs in areas where there is healthy ISP competition and areas where there is not suggest otherwise. Even credible rumors that an independent ISP might serve a significant portion of an area with a mon- or duopoly cause the incumbents to scramble to offer freebies, rate reductions, and gratis data transfer cap and speed increases. Given the all of the previous, and that the FCC continues to update their pole attachment regs to add more avenues for appeal and impose more and more "playing field leveling" rules, I suspect you know less about this topic that you claim to.